tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post8818882174240236219..comments2016-08-22T08:52:11.001-04:00Comments on Quintessence of Dust: On folk science and liesStephen Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-59526232081220667012008-03-03T23:52:00.000-05:002008-03-03T23:52:00.000-05:00I have been toying with the idea that inerrancy, d...I have been toying with the idea that inerrancy, dispensatoinalism, creationism, etc., are really not issues of belief, but rather serve as 'gatekeepers' to the community. The community can use these as ways to ensure that people entering are like them. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me, from what I have seen, that people are not really interested in the particular reasons for their beliefs, and don't even actually care much about whether they are true or not. You can tell if people are safe (that is, like you) by just finding out if they subscribe to a particular set of beliefs.<BR/><BR/>This kind of relates to the idea that the 'evidence' doesn't really have to be all that strong, so the Strobel-type arguments are good enough. And people who would want to question it, are not welcome in the community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-61395133166825104662007-12-15T06:51:00.000-05:002007-12-15T06:51:00.000-05:00I've read lots of blurbs on creationist lies and I...I've read lots of blurbs on creationist lies and I've never really been able to fully accept that. <I>"Telling lies for God."</I> While that might be the most parsimonious input/output evaluation, if you asked a creationist of this sort <I>"Is it okay to tell lies for God"</I> and <I>“Do you tell lies for God?”</I> and put them on a lie detector test, I imagine they'd say <I>"no/no"</I> and that the machine would say they thought they were telling you the truth. <BR/><BR/>I wasn’t very impressed with the God Delusion either. Actually I didn’t even get through the first chapter. Ideally the <I>“shopping”</I> should have already been done, but as it is, one had to re-test all the <I>“fruit”</I> before putting it in the <I>“basket.”</I> I said, <I>“Sorry self,”</I> and moved on. <BR/><BR/>It’s very important to make sure that what you say about your opponent is accurate because inevitably the more tiny nuances of inaccuracy that creep into your polemics, the more things escalate in a polemical war. And you hand them something. <I>"They call us liars, but we know we aren't and so...[dovetail into favorite Bible <A HREF="http://weblog.xanga.com/Agnostics_R_Us/583806896/aru-dictionary-c.html#cult_think_ism" REL="nofollow">cult think verses</A>]".</I> And you help fuel their own self deception and reinforce their bible-based delusions because you happen to be stepping into an ancient formula from the era of the Epistles where Christians were being confronted by <I>“heretics”</I> and thus the <I>“orthodox”</I> pulled out of their holy arses the quickest, easiest route to getting their sheep back on track. <BR/><BR/>Of course being accurate is very hard to do, especially with the internal tangled webs being what they are. And it is very tempting to summarize and feel validated because it is pretty straight forward that; <I>they knew, they did, and therefore…they are liars.</I> Right? I imagine that over 90% of the time people probably aren’t lying. <I>“Never assume a conspiracy when incompetence and self deception will do.”</I> <BR/><BR/>I’m not really convinced by the <I>“folk science”</I> label. <I>“Lies”</I> seems a little strong in general and <I>“folk science”</I> seems a little weak. Ultimately if <I>“folk science”</I> caught on it would take with it a derogatory tone not represented in the label itself. Because this isn’t the methodology of some cloister out in the boonies…it’s the methodology of these people in confrontation with the scientific establishment. <I>“Punk folk science.”</I> Lmao. I do appreciate where you are going with this but something in between is probably more warranted. Normally I’d have a new label on hand that fits just right…but I’ll have to ponder for a while.Agnostics_R_Ushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-83510482854021945572007-12-14T16:23:00.000-05:002007-12-14T16:23:00.000-05:00Folks, those are great comments. I'll respond som...Folks, those are great comments. I'll respond sometime tonight or tomorrow morning, but thanks already.<BR/>SteveSFMathesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-51933793025806026642007-12-14T12:48:00.000-05:002007-12-14T12:48:00.000-05:00I think this project is a great idea, Steve. Of co...I think this project is a great idea, Steve. Of course, I'd prefer starting with the Discovery Institute before RTB, mainly because I think they are more deliberately dishonest, and therefore more damaging, than RTB.<BR/><BR/>But I look forward to reading your next posts on the subject.John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-14677993432012266772007-12-13T21:22:00.000-05:002007-12-13T21:22:00.000-05:00Hi Stephen, I think “folk science” is a great mode...Hi Stephen, <BR/><BR/>I think “folk science” is a great model and it works perfectly for the common folk ie. for the vast majority of people who reject evolution because they believe it is irreconcilable with their faith, don’t have the tools to really investigate it properly, and simply trust their leaders. However, I think there is a different level of accountability for those in leadership. We all need to take seriously the words in James 3:1. (And I’m speaking for myself here too – even if my own role is virtually insignificant in the larger debate). For those in leadership that ignore data that contradicts their teaching, I’m not sure the appeal to “folk science” cuts it. Integrity is just way too important.Steve Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734019573868663947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-37604032697732672282007-12-13T15:13:00.000-05:002007-12-13T15:13:00.000-05:00I'm not convinced that this is a good model to und...I'm not convinced that this is a good model to understand creationism with.<BR/><BR/>The problem with creationism is that it's a self-working con. The people who push it don't have to be aware that it's false in order to perpetuate it.<BR/><BR/>Yet there are undoubtably duplicitous people working within creationism, such as those who clearly perjured themselves in the Dover trial. <BR/><BR/>For example Behe and others were shown to be false in their assertion that Darwin's Black Box was peer-reviewed more rigorously than most scolarly work. This was shown to be false, yet the DI's site still lists it as being a peer-reviewed book. So here is what I'd call a "knowing lie." <BR/><BR/>Look at the Nova special that aired recently about Dover. When they get to the point in the trial where Alan Bonsell was directly confronted by the judge for lying... and had to admit that he "misspoke" under oath... then we cut back to Bonsell interviewed after the trial and he's not one bit contrite:<BR/><BR/> <I> "Never in a million years did I ever think that we'd...you know, I'd be in a federal lawsuit when I was on the school board or have the school district in something like that, over a one minute statement, a one minute statement."</I><BR/><BR/>You see what's going on here? He's got to rationalize his own behavior by defiantly saying over and over "a one-minute statement." His brain would short-circuit if he looked at his own actions and found them dishonest... I'll say that Alan Bonsell CAN'T willfully lie, because he's expert at not examining himself. He nevertheless CAN lie while distracting himself with rationalizations so that he doesn't even notice that he's lying.<BR/><BR/>I'm not going to further delve into Bonsell, but I do think that folks like that mentally focus on Important Truths, and Important Truths are always more important than <I>little white lies of omission or not really lies when you really really mean well and God's really in charge anyway and my life's been so blessed that God must mean for me to bring his message to the blessed schoolchildren of pennsylvania.</I><BR/><BR/>Creationism is a self-working con. It's a telephone game where all sorts of claims arise from simple memetic mutation and are selected for their ability to find folks willing to repeat them. <BR/><BR/>It's not like these claims are usually authored by a knowing intellectual who knows ID is wrong but writes something for the rubes. Hardly. No, this stuff bubbles up from a million people's misread or misunderstood idea of a natural phenomenon. You really think that someone willfully decided that they'd twist the Second Law? No way! All that happened is that someone misunderstood it... didn't get that the earth isn't a closed system, took only the dumbed down idea that it somehow means "everything always breaks down eventually" and morphed that into "nothing can build up, ever".<BR/><BR/>Put this idea into a population where checking facts before repeating them is absolutely NOT a cultural norm, and you've got a memetic evolutionary tropical zone with a finger permenantly pushed on the fast-forward button.<BR/><BR/>Creationism is at bottom a set of faith-claims. There are many flavors (YEC, OEC, ID, AiG, Hovind, etc)... but each one occupies a niche. Each set of claims is selected by its adherants as those claims most pleasing and fulfilling of their needs for evidentiary reassurance of their religious beliefs and bounded on the other side by their access to scientific knowlege and their level of belief in certain scientific understanding and their level of critical thinking skill.<BR/><BR/>If at base a person believes that "what you believe" is more important in defining reality than "what you can prove", then you're arguing with someone who cannot accept argument.<BR/><BR/>These people will always exist.... and they're numerous. I honestly think that most creationists of any stripe just LIKE the idea of creationism for reasons completely divorced from the actual claims creationism makes, or the evidence they can bring.<BR/><BR/>Want to fight creationism? Fight it with religion, not science. Show that the logical conclusion to creationism is that God is evil, or stupid, or bumbling. Show that Creationism is a dangerous idea theologically. Dirty it.<BR/><BR/>Cause these folks aint' listening to the science.Siamangnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-87084623995890183812007-12-13T09:03:00.000-05:002007-12-13T09:03:00.000-05:00I think this concept of folk science is a useful c...I think this concept of folk science is a useful construct, and could explain many things. But I'm still having a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that someone with any sort of education in biology could manage to say some of the things creationists say. For example, in the blog post you cited from RTB, there are huge areas of evidence for common descent (everything related to the genome, for example) that are simply omitted. It would seem to me that even a person who had read only the popular literature would at least be aware of such evidence.<BR/><BR/>I can understand those poorly educated in science falling for folk science--it's easier and it makes you feel better! But I have a hard time understanding how a <B>biologist</B> could do so.<BR/><BR/>I was raised and educated YEC. The first thing that really turned me off to creationism was when I found just how many {lies | folk science explanations | omissions} were contained in the literature. Old earth seems a little bit better, but that appears to be mostly because they do not have to deny the same quantity of science as young earthers. The <I>method</I> still appears similar.Henry Neufeldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-42938055921006665582007-12-13T03:07:00.000-05:002007-12-13T03:07:00.000-05:00I think there is another angle on this issue. The ...I think there is another angle on this issue. The target audience for much creationist writing, and a fair amount of science writing, is not scientists or theologians, but 'ordinary folk'.<BR/><BR/>Much of what we ordinary folk believe is 'folk science' and 'folk religion'. Those scientists (e.g. professors of public understanding...) & theologians who try to communicate with us feel that they must "come down to our level", and actually address the half formed / half forgotten things that many of us believe.<BR/><BR/>Your blog & others are good for a suitable audience, but would be beyond many people.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I actually think that a lot of science, maths & religion taught in schools is a simplified folk version, anyway.<BR/><BR/>(My A level biology is rusty & twenty five years old, and my bible college was twenty years ago)Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00058787420887776814noreply@blogger.com